The days when it was socially acceptable for a male to try to seduce a female into a sexual liaison are long past. It ended with a campaign of “no means no,” such that a woman who responded with a clear “no” had fulfilled her part of the social interaction to communicate, clearly and decisively, that she did not consent to sexual contact.
Before those days, the social expectation was that a woman who wished not to be touched had to act to physically prevent the man from touching her. He could try, and she could push back. Even if she uttered words that made clear that she did not want to be touched, a physical manifestation was necessary.
After all, the male could try his damndest to convince her otherwise, even to the point of lying through his teeth. That was the nature of “seduction” back then. It was an accepted part of the game played between a man who wanted to have sex and a woman who may or may not. A woman might say no for a variety of reasons, from protecting her reputation to playing “hard to get,” when her “no” wasn’t really final. Or maybe it was. How else would one know but to test her fortitude?
Over the past few decades, much has changed in the social norms between males and females, all to increase the obfuscation of whether a sexual interaction was consensual or not. There were rape shield laws, protecting a woman from challenge based upon her prior sexual history. There was the anonymizing of the accuser, who became the “victim,” and has since become the “survivor” under current excesses of hyperbole, despite no loss of life having been threatened.
Two new thrusts, discussed here many times already, have emerged over the past couple of years. First, the “no means no” rubric has given way to “yes means yes.” Second, the definition of rape and sexual assault has become so diluted as to be rendered meaningless. Both rape and sexual assault can be determined by post hoc retrospection, by the sensibilities of the person, almost invariably the woman, without any requisite intent of a sexual touching by the man.
And the parity of consent has ceased to exist. Two drunk kids have morphed into one survivor and one rapist, based on genitalia. The amorphous line of incapacitation has disappeared into the foam atop a beer. One beer or ten, the notion that a person has lost the capacity to consent by dint of volitional acts has been replaced by the fallacy that alcohol, any amount of alcohol, is close enough to turn consensual sex into rape, to be determined by the way the survivor feels about it the next day. Or the next year, if the relationship soured and she no longer feels particularly kindly toward her former sex partner.
There has been a substantial effort made to compile a list of reasons why this is so, why it should be so, and why it’s not so problematic to require it to be so. From “it’s too exhausting” to stand up for one’s position, to a litany of rights untethered from responsibilities, the list serves to absolve a woman from the historic duties of a victim of a crime.
There is no duty to speak up at all, no less in a timely fashion, because women’s feelings impair their ability to act. There is no duty to be accurate when accusing a man, because the trauma impairs their ability to be accurate. But most importantly, there is no duty to inform the male that the woman does not want to be touched. Why, it’s argued, must a victim survivor be compelled to give notice that she doesn’t wish to be victimized?
Comparisons are drawn to other crimes, such as robbery. Must a robbery victim inform her robber that she doesn’t want him to steal her money or belongings? The analogy fails under scrutiny, when applied to a male and female who have voluntarily chosen to be together, to associate with each other in a social setting. It fails because the nature of sexual relations differs from the nature of one person taking the property of another without consent, itself a more complex interaction than the shallow analogy often used by academics to make this point.
It fails because of willful blindness to the irrationality of the new sexual construct, one guided almost entirely by emotion and in flagrant defiance of reason.
But all of this is fine, provided it doesn’t cross over from social norms to legal obligations. If males and females are good with asking for consent before any touching, because any touching might be construed as sexual by the recipient of the touch, and thus a sexual assault with deleterious consequences, they should be entitled to engage in sexual courtship under whatever norms work for them.
And if they are not on the same social norm page, and the woman feels that a man has touched her inappropriately under whatever rules exist in her mind, she should be free to walk, no run, away, tell all her friends on social media, or how she was attacked and traumatized by the man who failed to obtain express consent to touch her cheek, and bask in the comfort of their sympathy.
As for imposing legal sanction, whether criminal or civil, the untenable gap of notice cannot be overcome. When “no means no” was the norm, at least there was clear notice, even if the notice might have obscured other purposes. The new regime eliminates notice, even though many woman deny it by wrapping it up in rhetoric that ultimately provides no test. If “yes” does not require a verbal assertion, at every move of a muscle, throughout the sexual interaction, plus proof of total, unfettered capacity to consent, plus the hope that there will be no post hoc accusation that a woman’s agency was overrode by unspoken feelings, such that positive consent was obtained despite secret doubts, then “yes means yes” fails.
But the new regime adds an additional layer of problem, the presumption that accusations be deemed proven until disproven, with the burden shift to the accused to disprove what the survivor claims occurred, even if only in the quiet recesses of her mind.
As a basis for legal recognition, none of this works. The lack of a requirement for open notice makes it legally untenable for the accused to know what can and cannot be done. It could be resolved by a legal requirement of “yes” with every move of a muscle, every thrust if you will. If that’s what’s required, then that needs to be made clear. Despite the fact that it’s unlikely that anyone, male or female, actually wants that to be the legal requirement, it at least has the virtue of satisfying the need for notice.
But if this is really where everyone wants to head, then there needs to be recognition of yet another fact that is denied with great persistence. All of this is “needed” because women are inadequate to the task of being equal to men. They are too weak.
Not too weak in terms of strength. None of this relates to forcible rape or sexual assault. Too weak mentally, intellectually, to assert their will. I reject this premise and believe that women are, and can be, equal. Every person, male or female, who claims equality while demanding inequality tacitly asserts female intellectual inferiority. Neither your attacks of reason nor your claims of equality can cover up this reality. Women are either equal to men, and thus capable of saying no and being responsible for the consequences of their actions, or they are not.
The same purposes served by law with regard to all other human endeavor exist in regard to the sexual interaction between two people. If you believe in equality of the sexes, then the only viable metric for sexual interaction is “no means no.” No outpouring of emotion or excuses can overcome the absolution of the duty imposed on all human beings to assert a position as rationally demanded by the circumstances, and then bear the consequences of one’s assertion. Unless, of course, you believe that women are the weakest sex, and thus in need of special privilege to compensate for their inadequacy.
This lie that’s been perpetrated, that we can pretend to be equal while changing the rules to compensate for gross inequality, cannot be ignored. The law requires reason, or it fails to sustain its legitimacy. It’s time to confront this truth before the damage done, the slide down the slope of sexual irrationality, cannot be stopped.
Call me what you will, but this is what equality looks like. Are you prepared to assert that the law needs to treat women like the weakest sex, incapable of meeting the ordinary legal requirements that apply otherwise? No denial, excuse, rationalization, will alter the fact that you, not me, think women are the weakest sex. I am the feminist. You are lying to yourself.
This is going to seem like a total ass kiss, but seriously, did you make a resolution to become more awesome in 2016?
This article is THE truth. 😉
Please remove your tongue from my anus.
Perhaps you should reconsider. Some of my past clients have told me that normally costs extra.
Nope. Not going there. Not gonna do it.
You only say think this because you too are a victim of the patriarchy. You may even have PTSD from it. Or twitter. I’ve heard that can happen. But most likely from thr CAPCHA.
Probably the captcha.
This is about as direct as it gets. What brought this on?
I had a chat yesterday with a young lawyer (who shall remain nameless, unless he wants to out himself), who had been fairly open about his views on gender politics, and they were slightly less than politically correct. He told me that his views made a lot of people uncomfortable with him, and while they would say to his face that they agreed, or at least supported his right to express his views, he was getting his ass kicked behind his back.
My advice to him was that he had to weigh the cost of expressing his views with the necessity, as he was not absolved of paying the price for politically incorrect views. The cost was higher than he preferred to pay.
But then it dawned on me, it’s incumbent on old guys like me to take the weight of expressing unpopular truths because I can afford the cost. I’m long past the time of sexual conquests, having been married over 30 years. I have both a son and daughter, so my concerns aren’t self-serving; both bear risks and my love for both of them makes me cognizant of them. And my shoulders are broad enough that I can bear the weight of being called names by the unduly emotional, the irrational, the liars and the ignorant. So if someone has to say that the empress wears no clothes, I would be the perfect choice, save for one small issue: I don’t have the massive team following of those courting the malignancy of the feelz. Just lawyers who refuse to be blinded by their politics to the point of sacrificing all principle for the gender flavor of the month.
The only question is whether others who, like me, have the wherewithal to tell the truth are also possessed of the fortitude to do so. Maybe this post will embolden them to stand up, be heard, and put an end to the insanity.
It was me.
In the past I’ve been fairly open about putting my political beliefs out there. And while I’ve met a lot of cool people, I’ve also found that it turns a lot of people off to an entirely different level. Several people said things behind my back, unfriended me on Facebook, and even tried to leave nasty reviews about my law firm (non-clients) just because they didn’t like what have to say.
It’s become very personal with some people, to the extent where it’s not enough to just disagree, but now they want to see that person destroyed professionally. Certain topics have become more of a religion than a political opinion, where disagreement is now akin to heresy. I find this desire to crush the dissent reprehensible, yet very very real.
While I’d like to keep fighting the good fight, I’ve stopped writing and posting about feminism, gender relations, politics, etc, and I’ve gone back to writing about stuff more directly relevant to my law practice. I’m relegated to quietly supporting the Greenfields and Cernovichs of the world, who continue to speak an unpleasant truth.
The result? Sadly, business is up.
The whole “Yes means Yes” culture and the “get assent for everything” teachings that have been going around have made me concerned about my relationship with my wife.
I’ve started asking her if I can ask her if I can say “Hi, Honey” in a friendly manner, or must maintain neutral greetings at all times.
My daughter looked at me funny when I ask her “Is this okay? May I touch you here?” as I was changing her diapers.
I’m afraid I’m going to get locked up for sexual assault any day now for opening a door for a woman without asking permission…
I don’t get this culture. Maybe it’s because I’m a man, but I feel like this is over-victimizing relationships and sexuality. But “feelz”, I guess.
Honey? You’re courting fate.
Can you turn this into useful actionable advice? For example, if the pendulum swings back, condom manufacturers might be a good investment, but if the current momentum continues, it might be time to short the ball-gag manufacturers, because those things make on-going consent notification difficult.
Yeah, no, that “robber” analogy rocks. It doesn’t beg the question at all by presuming the man to be a rapist in advance of any interaction. And you say lawprofs use it? The kind that’s gonna grade me?
Yup. That kind of prawf.
Wow, that’s even dumber. In Corey’s fantasy world, men sneak up to women and steal the sex out of their vaginas without them noticing? Awesome. Sign me up for Kansas law school.
Okay. You got me laughing on that one. You win today.
Arrest her — she stole my semen.
What is this, me agreeing with you again on a feminist topic? Has something gotten in the water up there in New York? It was that unseasonable December weather, wasn’t it–you northerners aren’t used to shirt-sleeve weather on Christmas Day.
I had a much longer thought about how the old madonna/whore dichotomy is still programmed into men and women and the fallout we’re still seeing from it, but I seriously cannot get the words down in a concise and coherent fashion right now. Sorry about that. Maybe I’ll post something in my own logs when I get the pieces of the idea together.
Why is it my fault you agree with me? Maybe it’s your fault. Did you ever think of that?
The water is a little odd around here…
Katie Roiphe told people this is where we were headed in _The Morning After_. The current climate on campus can be largely explained by the numbers of current professors and administrators who dismissed her as a misogynist in the 90s.
What continues to baffle me is that almost no one calling for affirmative consent as a legal standard seems to realize that the type of person who will rape someone (whether through using force, ignoring a clear and obvious no and preventing them from leaving, or even just being the kind of jerk who ignores obvious body language that they’re not into it) is also the kind of person who will lie. There are more liars than rapists in the world, but I’d wager most of the people who don’t see the moral issue with forcing someone to have sex also don’t really have a moral problem with lying about it. “She said yes, I don’t know why she’s saying that she didn’t, maybe one of her friends called her a slut or something.”
It’s a great recipe for creating a whole bunch of problems while solving none.
So, does this mean “he” has to say “yes” before I can touch “him”?
Also, aside from treating women like incapable delicate little snowflakes (trust me I can deck a guy if I need to), this whole “mother may I” thing would probably cause me to deck a guy out of sheer irritation.
Depends on where you wanna touch me Sweetie .
All kidding aside…thanks radical lesbian feminists and all those womyn’s and gender studies courses that proliferate on our college campuses and soon coming to a high school near you. Academia is full of them and they rule the roost these days.
Even if a woman says yes, she can have regret the next day and then its rapey rape. The guy is screwed and not in a good way.
It’s interesting that the comparison to robbery suggests an illegal transfer of possessions. As the main transfer is semen and of course DNA this would put women in the hot seat for ensuring that all intentions were up front. As we all know there are not even rudimentary laws protecting men from this sought of “robbery”.
There needs to be a campaign to inform young men of the steps they should take to protect themselves. For example saving all emails and text responses from the young lady after a hookup should be seen as just as necessary as wearing a jimmy before the sex.
There are, though the “campaign” may be as much a part of the problem as the problem because of simplistic approaches and acquiescence to the problem. There is an enormous amount of information available to young men about what is happening, and your suggestion that “there needs to be” is way behind the curve.